Taipei Times: The US has played an important role in cross-strait relations during the past few decades. To what extent do you think the US will change in terms of its involvement in cross-strait relations under Bush's administration?
Torkel Patterson: I don't think the US role in cross-strait relations will change dramatically under Bush's administration. I don't know what Bush's administration is going to do. But as an observer, I would say that there are reasons the way things are the way they are, and it will take a lot to change that. I think the Taiwan Relations Act is the governing law in the US concerning US relations with Taiwan. I think any administration would have to recognize that.
TT: Taking into account that Bush perceives China as a "competitor" rather than a "strategic partner," in what direction will US relations with China go under Bush?
Patterson: I can't speak for Bush's administration. But I think it's clear that China is not a strategic partner of the US. China someday may be a strategic partner of the US, but it's not [now] a strategic partner of the US. China competes with the US in lots of areas just as other countries compete with the US in a lot of areas. It's not unnatural that China is a competitor of the US. I don't think anybody wants to see China made into an enemy, though.
China, however, does have an aggressive missile production program, and that's going to continue whether Taiwan becomes part of China or not. They use Taiwan as an excuse. But if all of a sudden tomorrow Taiwan is reunified, they will continue that missile production exactly the same way. China wants to have a place in the world, and it wants to achieve its natural space. It doesn't want to expand into Vietnam. It doesn't want to take over India, and it doesn't want to take over Japan. But China does believe that Taiwan is part of China, and it does believe that the South China Sea is a Chinese sea. And I don't think that it is in the US interest to see Taiwan become part of China unless it's a democratic China.
TT: You've argued that future China-US relations depend a lot on what China does. Could you further elaborate?
Patterson: My point is that America's ability to influence what goes on inside China is on the margins. Even though people said that the US could determine a lot of internal situations in China, I think it's up to China. The US is going to do what it should do for its own interest, and China's response to that is going to determine the quality of relations. In other words, you can't blame the US for China's reaction. China's reaction is up to China.
TT: But some analysts in the West have argued that the US can actually trigger some sort of peaceful transformation inside China. Do you agree with this argument?
Patterson: If China wants to modernize and it wants to change and to allow for a democratic evolution, and we can give constructive assistance, we are happy to. But the major decision on that part is up to China. The US can't get involved anymore than the Chinese themselves. We will help China in any constructive way we can.
TT: Kenneth Lieberthal has argued lately that China's accession to the WTO is expected to trigger instability inside China. He argued that since a stable China is in the interest of everyone, the US should do whatever it can to help China stabilize. Do you agree with his argument?
RSS